David A Reardon1, Louis B Nabors1, Warren P Mason1, James R Perry1, William Shapiro1, Petr Kavan1, David Mathieu1, Surasak Phuphanich1, Agnieszka Cseh1, Yali Fu1, Julie Cong1, Sven Wind1, David D Eisenstat1. 1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts (D.A.R.); University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama (L.B.N.); Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (W.P.M.); Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (J.R.P.); Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona (W.S.); Department of Medical Oncology, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada (P.K.); Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada (D.M.); Johnnie Cochran Brain Tumor Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California (S.P., A.C.); Boehringer Ingelheim R.C.V GmbH & Co KG, 1120 Vienna, Austria (A.C.); Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, Connecticut (Y.F., J.C.); Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. K.G., 88400 Biberach, Germany (S.S.W.); CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (D.D.E.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This phase I/II trial evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of afatinib plus temozolomide as well as the efficacy and safety of afatinib as monotherapy (A) or with temozolomide (AT) vs temozolomide monotherapy (T) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Phase I followed a traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine MTD. Treatment cohorts were: afatinib 20, 40, and 50 mg/day (plus temozolomide 75 mg/m(2)/day for 21 days per 28-day cycle). In phase II, participants were randomized (stratified by age and KPS) to receive A, T or AT; A was dosed at 40 mg/day and T at 75 mg/m(2) for 21 of 28 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6). Participants were treated until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression. RESULTS: Recommended phase II dose was 40 mg/day (A) + T based on safety data from phase I (n = 32). Most frequent AEs in phase II (n = 119) were diarrhea (71% [A], 82% [AT]) and rash (71% [A] and 69% [AT]). Afatinib and temozolomide pharmacokinetics were unaffected by coadministration. Independently assessed PFS-6 rate was 3% (A), 10% (AT), and 23% (T). Median PFS was longer in afatinib-treated participants with epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR) vIII-positive tumors versus EGFRvIII-negative tumors. Best overall response included partial response in 1 (A), 2 (AT), and 4 (T) participants and stable disease in 14 (A), 14 (AT), and 21 (T) participants. CONCLUSIONS:Afatinib has a manageable safety profile but limited single-agent activity in unselected recurrent GBM patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This phase I/II trial evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of afatinib plus temozolomide as well as the efficacy and safety of afatinib as monotherapy (A) or with temozolomide (AT) vs temozolomide monotherapy (T) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Phase I followed a traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine MTD. Treatment cohorts were: afatinib 20, 40, and 50 mg/day (plus temozolomide 75 mg/m(2)/day for 21 days per 28-day cycle). In phase II, participants were randomized (stratified by age and KPS) to receive A, T or AT; A was dosed at 40 mg/day and T at 75 mg/m(2) for 21 of 28 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6). Participants were treated until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression. RESULTS: Recommended phase II dose was 40 mg/day (A) + T based on safety data from phase I (n = 32). Most frequent AEs in phase II (n = 119) were diarrhea (71% [A], 82% [AT]) and rash (71% [A] and 69% [AT]). Afatinib and temozolomide pharmacokinetics were unaffected by coadministration. Independently assessed PFS-6 rate was 3% (A), 10% (AT), and 23% (T). Median PFS was longer in afatinib-treated participants with epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR) vIII-positive tumors versus EGFRvIII-negative tumors. Best overall response included partial response in 1 (A), 2 (AT), and 4 (T) participants and stable disease in 14 (A), 14 (AT), and 21 (T) participants. CONCLUSIONS:Afatinib has a manageable safety profile but limited single-agent activity in unselected recurrent GBM patients.
Authors: Ingo K Mellinghoff; Maria Y Wang; Igor Vivanco; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Shaojun Zhu; Ederlyn Q Dia; Kan V Lu; Koji Yoshimoto; Julie H Y Huang; Dennis J Chute; Bridget L Riggs; Steve Horvath; Linda M Liau; Webster K Cavenee; P Nagesh Rao; Rameen Beroukhim; Timothy C Peck; Jeffrey C Lee; William R Sellers; David Stokoe; Michael Prados; Timothy F Cloughesy; Charles L Sawyers; Paul S Mischel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amy B Heimberger; Roman Hlatky; Dima Suki; David Yang; Jeff Weinberg; Mark Gilbert; Raymond Sawaya; Kenneth Aldape Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeremy N Rich; David A Reardon; Terry Peery; Jeannette M Dowell; Jennifer A Quinn; Kara L Penne; Carol J Wikstrand; Lauren B Van Duyn; Janet E Dancey; Roger E McLendon; James C Kao; Timothy T Stenzel; B K Ahmed Rasheed; Sandra E Tourt-Uhlig; James E Herndon; James J Vredenburgh; John H Sampson; Allan H Friedman; Darell D Bigner; Henry S Friedman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Franceschi; G Cavallo; S Lonardi; E Magrini; A Tosoni; D Grosso; L Scopece; V Blatt; B Urbini; A Pession; G Tallini; L Crinò; A A Brandes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A A Brandes; A Tosoni; G Cavallo; R Bertorelle; V Gioia; E Franceschi; M Biscuola; V Blatt; L Crinò; M Ermani Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Shilpa Bhatia; Sanjana Bukkapatnam; Benjamin Van Court; Andy Phan; Ayman Oweida; Jacob Gadwa; Adam C Mueller; Miles Piper; Laurel Darragh; Diemmy Nguyen; Ahmed Gilani; Michael Knitz; Thomas Bickett; Adam Green; Sujatha Venkataraman; Rajeev Vibhakar; Diana Cittelly; Sana D Karam Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Minjee Kim; Janice K Laramy; Afroz S Mohammad; Surabhi Talele; James Fisher; Jann N Sarkaria; William F Elmquist Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Zammam Areeb; Stanley S Stylli; Thomas M B Ware; Nicole C Harris; Lipi Shukla; Ramin Shayan; Lucia Paradiso; Bo Li; Andrew P Morokoff; Andrew H Kaye; Rodney B Luwor Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 3.064